Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 22, 2017, 07:15:46 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 97
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who is the most 'generic D' candidate? on: June 21, 2017, 12:31:47 pm
Cory Booker
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Clinton v Trump on: June 19, 2017, 12:58:41 pm
Sanders in the primary, Johnson in the general (might have voted for Clinton with hindsight).
3  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Sanders blasts Saudi for spreading radicalism & wants relationship re-evaluated on: June 13, 2017, 02:02:22 pm
I wholeheartedly agree with Sanders on this point. The Saudi government arguably has one of the worlds worst human rights records, as they do not allow much political freedom, routinely execute and torture people who violate Islamic law, and have in place policies that discriminate against religious minorities such as Shi'a Muslims. Additionally, Saudi Arabia has been a strong promoter of Wahabbism (an extremist form of Islam that considers all non-Muslims to be heretics who deserve death) and covertly supports numerous violent extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS. The US definitely needs to reconsider its relationship with Saudi Arabia.
4  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Russian election hacking hit 39 states, attacked voter data on: June 13, 2017, 01:52:03 pm
Russia literally committed an act of war against us, and Trump voters think we're all only complaining because we're butt hurt Hillary lost.

This has nothing to do with Democrat vs. Republican, and anyone who cannot see that is a moron.

Putting party before country, the way the GOP and many Trump voters are doing, is treasonous.
Time to invade Russia to remove Putin from power then! The US will totally win a war against Russia and not have any collateral damage from it (lol).

     A big part of the reason Russia is so aggressive with us is that they know we would have to be utter morons to actually fight them. What we are doing now with sanctions and diplomatic pressure is about the limit of what we realistically can do with Russia.
I agree. Launching a war against Russia will open up a huge can of worms to say the least. Expanding sanctions that are already in place and placing a travel ban on Putin and anyone connected to his government are probably the only actions the US can take right now.
5  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Russian election hacking hit 39 states, attacked voter data on: June 13, 2017, 01:26:50 pm
Russia literally committed an act of war against us, and Trump voters think we're all only complaining because we're butt hurt Hillary lost.

This has nothing to do with Democrat vs. Republican, and anyone who cannot see that is a moron.

Putting party before country, the way the GOP and many Trump voters are doing, is treasonous.
Time to invade Russia to remove Putin from power then! The US will totally win a war against Russia and not have any collateral damage from it (lol).
6  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Dana Rohrabacher suggests the US should support ISIS against Iran on: June 11, 2017, 01:45:16 pm
More proof that the US has a biased policy against Shi'a Muslims.
7  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: 2018 Senators DOA on: June 11, 2017, 01:43:28 pm
Probably Heller and Manchin.
8  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: What states do you think will vote for a different party? (2018 Senate election) on: June 05, 2017, 07:59:19 am
Democrats pick up Arizona (Jeff Flake gets primaried by Kelli Ward), Nevada, and Texas, whereas the Republicans only pick up West Virginia.
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What will the political landscape look like after the 2020 election? on: May 29, 2017, 06:38:20 pm
I predict Dems get overconfident and screw things up and that Republicans will still be in control after 2020.
The Democrats are really good at snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Early 2020 predictions? on: May 29, 2017, 06:37:17 pm

Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ)/Governor John Bel Edwards (D-LA): 360 EVs (50%)
President Donald Trump (R-NY)/Vice President Michael Pence (R-IN): 172 EVs (44%)
Evan McMullin (I-UT)/Mindy Finn (I-TX): 6 EVs (4%)
Others: 0 EVs (2%)

The closest states are Texas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.

Yikes. I told you to disregard who the candidates were.
I misread the first post. Sorry.
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Early 2020 predictions? on: May 29, 2017, 06:21:54 pm

Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ)/Governor John Bel Edwards (D-LA): 360 EVs (50%)
President Donald Trump (R-NY)/Vice President Michael Pence (R-IN): 172 EVs (44%)
Evan McMullin (I-UT)/Mindy Finn (I-TX): 6 EVs (4%)
Others: 0 EVs (2%)

The closest states are Texas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.
12  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Predict the number of House seats Dems will pick up in 2018 (May 2017 edition) on: May 29, 2017, 11:40:30 am
I voted 30-40, which is roughly in line with the average mid-term since 1990 in which the president's party controlled the House (so 2010, 2006, 2002, and 1994). I think Trump's unpopularity will really hurt Republicans, but gerrymandering/clustering and increased polarization will limit Republican losses.

Edit:

But I could also see ~60 seats (like in 2010) if things just keep getting worse for Trump and the Republican Congress, or ~10 seats if Trump settles into 40% approval ratings and Republicans retain control of their base. But imo the latter scenario would be an historical anomaly.
I also agree that the Democrats have a 50-50  chance at regaining the House  in 2018 if they play their cards right. It is also possible that the Democrats will end up snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and end up losing the House barely as well. 
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Which GOP senators would be likely to vote in favor of Trump's impeachment? on: May 18, 2017, 08:19:03 am
Probably Jeff Flake, Dean Heller, John McCain, Rob Portman, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Ben Sasse, and Ted Cruz.
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 2018 results on: May 13, 2017, 02:29:43 pm


I have the Democrats picking up Nevada, Arizona, and Texas, but the Republicans picking up Montana, West Virginia, Missouri, North Dakota, Indiana, and Wisconsin, giving them a 55 seat majority.

On the other hand, I have the Democrats regaining control of the House of Representaitves due to the unpopularity of the Trump Administration and dissatisfaction with the record of House Republicans. At the minimum, I see the Democrats picking up 30 House seats (mostly from states such as California, New York, and New Jersey), but also feel that the Democrats could pick up 75 House seats from the Republicans if they play their cards right.
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: An American House of Cards: The Kennedy Dynasty on: April 17, 2017, 07:18:14 pm
Great timeline!, though I would probably give Vermont to MacNider, as Vermont was still a solidly Republican state in 1940.
16  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Bold 2018 predictions? on: April 13, 2017, 08:04:14 pm
LOL that delusion again :-D

Reality: GOP near the Filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a smaller House majority in the ranks of the first 6 Bush years.
I have the Republicans having a net gain of 4 Senate seats (I feel that the Democrats will gain Arizona, Nevada, and Texas, but losing Missouri, Indiana, North Dakota, Montana, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Ohio) and the Democrats retaking the House by a decent margin. My gut intuition is that 2018 is going to be a strange midterm election.
17  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Which of these monarchies will still exist in 2050? on: April 10, 2017, 07:50:34 pm
Probably all except Bahrain (I feel that the oppressed Shi'a majority will overthrow the monarch and possibly merge with Iran) and Saudi Arabia (I feel that Saudi Arabia's support for the anti-Assad forces in Syria, intervention in the Yemeni Civil War, and continued repression of its Shi'a population will eventually tear the country apart within the next 5-10 years).
18  General Discussion / Alternative History / Re: WI: Shah of Iran Overhrown in 1963 on: April 06, 2017, 08:39:34 pm
This, if it occurs, will be a headache for whoever is President during this time.
I agree. I think that Iran would initially have descended into open conflict between the left-wing and the religious factions if the Shah was overthrown in 1963 that might have lasted into the late 1960s. I also feel that Ayatollah Khomenei would have joined the Arab Coalition in the 1967 Six Day War despite Iran's religious and ideological differences with the Arab states. Having Iran intervene in the war on the side of the Arabs definitely would have denied Israel a victory in the war and would have likely convinced the Iranian people to support their new government much like how the Iran-Iraq War did in RL.
It would have served to boost the Mullah government's popularity at home, yes. Long-run, this has massive butterflies in Isreali politics; Labor likely holds on power for longer.
It is also possible that Iran's presence in the Arab coalition during the Six-Day War would have resulted in Israel's destruction, as Iran has the largest and most well-equipt military in the Middle East during the 1960s in RL. Even though an earlier Iranian Revolution would have weakened the Iranian military to a point (I assume many of the military members connected to the Shah would have either been executed of forced into retirement by the government of Ayatollah Khomeini), Iran's military would have still been formidable.

I also feel that people such as Ali Shariati, Ebrahim Yazdi, Mostafa Chamran, and Mehdi Bazargan would have been major figures in the new Iranian government in this TL.
19  General Discussion / Alternative History / Re: WI: Shah of Iran Overhrown in 1963 on: April 03, 2017, 04:40:00 am
This, if it occurs, will be a headache for whoever is President during this time.
I agree. I think that Iran would initially have descended into open conflict between the left-wing and the religious factions if the Shah was overthrown in 1963 that might have lasted into the late 1960s. I also feel that Ayatollah Khomenei would have joined the Arab Coalition in the 1967 Six Day War despite Iran's religious and ideological differences with the Arab states. Having Iran intervene in the war on the side of the Arabs definitely would have denied Israel a victory in the war and would have likely convinced the Iranian people to support their new government much like how the Iran-Iraq War did in RL.
20  General Discussion / Alternative History / Re: WI: Shah of Iran Overhrown in 1963 on: April 02, 2017, 09:48:00 am
Does anyone want to take on this scenario, or is it a bit far-fetched?
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How will Donald Trump be remembered in 2066? on: April 02, 2017, 09:46:35 am
He'll be on historian's lists of the worst presidents in US history, alongside James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, Millard Fillmore, and Warren G. Harding.

The worst of the worst.
I agree. Trump is a pretty horrible President overall with a flawed domestic policy and a reckless foreign policy, as I feel that Trump will launch military strikes against Iran and North Korea within the coming months in addition to stepping up US presence in the Yemen Civil War. He will probably be in the bottom 10 US Presidents when all is asaid and done. Hillary Clinton probably wouldn't have been much better though, as she would have increased US presence in the Syrian Civil War and would have ramped up tensions with Russia that could have eventually lead to a confrontation with both countries (I know Putin is an brutal autocrat and does not respect human rights, but our hands are kind of tied due to the fact that Russia is a nuclear-armed state and could easily retaliate against the US militarily). The only area in which Clinton was markedly superior to Trump IMO  was on environmental policy and education policy. Still, I opposed both Clinton and Trump and felt they were both extremely flawed candidates and instead voted for Gary Johnson (I voted straight Democratic for all other offices though). 
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Past Election What-ifs (US) / Re: NJ SEN 2000: Bob Franks beats Jon Corzine on: April 02, 2017, 07:32:51 am
I am thinking that Bob Franks gets re-elected in 2006 (as the Democrats didn't really have that strong of a bench if candidates that year other than Bob Melendez), but still dies in 2010 as in RL. I assume that Governor Christie probably appoints Tom Kean Jr. to Bob Frank's old seat. Tom Kean Jr. probably gets elected to a full term in 2012, but likely loses to Steve Fulop in 2018 due to President Trump's very high disapproval rating in New Jersey and general dissatisfaction with the policies pursued by the New Jersey Republican Party in recent years.
23  General Discussion / Alternative History / WI: Shah of Iran Overhrown in 1963 on: March 24, 2017, 11:38:35 am
In June of 1963, there was a series of major protests in Iran due to imprisoning of Ayatollah Khomeini and in response to the policies implemented by the Shah through the "White Revolution". Ultimately, the protests were crushed by the Iranian military and forces loyal to the Shah, but assuming that they weren't and instead increased in intensity to the point in which the Shah was forced to abdicate and ultimately be replaced as the leader of Iran by Ayatollah Khomeini, how do you think Iranian politics would have played out?
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Bill de Blasio's floor on: March 19, 2017, 01:02:18 pm
25  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The ban just enacted includes legal US residents on: January 31, 2017, 08:38:57 am
If a person fled the Iran in the 70's or 80's to escape the mullahs, say to the U.K. or France, that person would still have Iranian citizenship and would be barred from stepping foot on US soil.

Completely stupid.

My cousin fits that mold exactly. As of now, he can't visit us because he's a dual UK-Iranian citizen.

What the  is going on here?
How would the ban impact Iranians with dual US-Iranian citizenship? The reason I ask is because I am friends with an Iranian-American woman whose parents (who did/still support the Iranian Revolution and participated in it) came to the US around 1984 or '85 due to the Iran-Iraq War (her father served in the war and was present during Operation Beit ol-Moqaddas). My friends has also travelled to Iran 3 times to visit her family, most recently in early 2016.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 97


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines